[rimbo789]

Good riddance. It won’t be missed. Very little of Hollywood benefited humanity - it was mostly a tool of the rich and governments to propagandize. It was just an another opiate for masses. It was built on ruthless exploitation of labour and consumers.

[Rover222]

This is such a college freshman worldview take, IMO.

[simianwords]

for what it's worth, I agree. there's a lot that hollywood contributed and a large part of our culture can be attributed to things that stuck from hollywood.

As an example: I know that the particular type of sitcoms like Friends or How I Met Your Mother are very popular in third world countries. They are the first real window into western culture for many people in such countries. A lot of ideas like promiscuity, dating, career and the western way of life are primarily introduced to people through such media.

Its hard to overstate the impact this brings. Once you have enough people exposed to such ideas, the mindset changes and the ripple effects are pretty huge.

Third world countries would still be in their old and primitive lifestyle if not for the propaganda of Hollywood which I very much welcome.

[mapotofu]

That’s great. Your opinions are important, regardless of how well formed they are. What grade level should we assign your worldview?

[Rover222]

Being nihilistic about everything is intellectually lazy and self righteous, and usually naïve.

[boca_honey]

Hollywood produced some of the most influential pieces of art of the last century and it permeated global culture in a way only comparable to Renaissance-era Florence. Even if your simplistic take stained by marxist propaganda is true, you shouldn't just casually dismiss the labor of hundreds of thousands of artists and technicians over a century simply because you've become jaded by Marvel slop.

[heresie-dabord]

> some of the most influential pieces of art of the last century and it permeated global culture in a way only comparable to Renaissance-era Florence

Not just comparable; easily greater than. US movie business has easily been more influential than Romanticism. That said... TFA makes undeniably valid points:

"Morale has been battered by tens of thousands of layoffs, the exodus of production from California to lower-cost territories, the waning cultural relevance of cinema versus social media, declining attendance at theater chains and fears that artificial intelligence will displace traditional moviemaking.

[...] this year’s Oscar race has been overshadowed by rival Paramount Skydance Corp.’s $110 billion deal to buy the company. It’s the third time Warner Bros. has been sold in less than a decade.

[...] Hollywood’s anxiety — the local industry’s challenges are often compared to the decline of automaking in Detroit — isn’t misplaced. The crisis has grown to such magnitude that last year, California doubled the annual assistance it gives to film and TV productions to $750 million to stop them from fleeing the state."

[rimbo789]

Influential? Yes. Was that influence for the betterment of humanity? I’m not sure. Beyond the slop many of the classics were deeply racist and built on immoral exploitation. Yes all those artists did great work but they did it in terrible conditions for where near enough pay.

Take apocalypse now: a great piece of art. Was it worth the pain and suffering of its production? Absolutely not.

[Yokohiii]

Terrible historical practices/immoral productions shouldn't the reason alone for such dismissal. Every industry had it's fair share of terrible things. Sometimes, we learn to do better. There are also enough ongoing things to be worried about.

Hollywood should implode and hopefully the art form will resurrect for the better. But for me the primary reason is that they don't live up to what they are supposed to do. Creating good art.

[rimbo789]

Hollywood was never about making art. It was about making money. That some good art came out of it was an accident of the process.

Do I want movies to survive? Sure. But Hollywood as a thing was about vacuuming up every penny it could and that I do not grieve.

[Yokohiii]

The greed is the same for all players and industries. I don't see why hollywood's situation is different. They just failed to adapt to new conditions.

I agree that the good stuff is just a result of shotgunning, for every great movie, there are 100 that are forgettable. But we have the habit of concentrating power in one place, so I have no clue how it could be otherwise. Sure youtube is an alternative with myriad of independent creators, but it produced totally different outcomes.

[mrguyorama]

In Capitalism, Capital holders are in charge of what gets resources.

If you want to make something non-trivial, you need investment from a capital holder. Even Indie movies spend tons of effort on funding and investment and trying to have cashflow to make something happen.

The death of hollywood does not change this reality, it simply changes which capital holders you must seek patronage from.

Hollywood was sex pests and morons sure, but so are the rest of the Capital holders we have. Big movies will still be beholden to the rich, because the rich are who have capital.

The shape of the system hasn't changed, only the names of the people at the top.

[simianwords]

> I’m not sure. Beyond the slop many of the classics were deeply racist and built on immoral exploitation. Yes all those artists did great work but they did it in terrible conditions for where near enough pay.

This is so naive, I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are. Hollywood is the first window into the western way of life for many third worlders. And if you knew how the third world really is, they are much more racist, much more primitive than the West.

In reality, Hollywood opens up people into western culture - openness, rationality and so on.

[throwaway91827]

Just trying to understand your point here- so non-westerners are primitive and irrational, unlike the West, led by Donald Trump, champion of rational, elevated discourse?

[boca_honey]

He's right. Moral self-righteousness aside, Hollywood was a window for many of us in "developing countries" to a better world. Yeah, it was an idealized version of reality, but that's how many of us discovered science, athleticism or sexual freedom, for example.

[throwaway91827]

I don't disagree that you got a window into American values, I just don't agree that proximity to American values is the same as civilization versus primitivism.

[simianwords]

yes that's my point. Trump is an aberration.

[taftster]

Agreed. To say "good riddance" to Hollywood scares me. Like we are giving up and accepting generated slop and influencers from now on. There's a lot of bad movies, but just as you said, very few mediums have thusly pierced through across cultures and societies quite like Hollywood.

[bdz]

>To say "good riddance" to Hollywood scares me

It should only scare you if you are ignorant.

>very few mediums have thusly pierced through across cultures and societies quite like Hollywood

This is laughable if you look at video games and music EVEN if you ignore everything american. Not mention Asia from Bollywood to Kpop to anime to HK cinema.

[taftster]

The modern age of video games, that's probably correct. And you're right, music probably compares at some level, especially given that it predates cinema. I wonder if ancient theater (Shakespeare, et al) would qualify. Probably.

I did, for the record, say "very few mediums", so as to allow room for music or video games, perhaps. I still stand by the overall statement that losing Hollywood would mark some sort of tragedy (but maybe not universally).

Also, I wouldn't go as far to say that losing what we know of in current celebrity status by certain actors would be missed. Though influencers are probably more grotesque to some (including myself).